Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-79b67bcb76-wlt4x Total loading time: 0.226 Render date: 2021-05-16T19:55:27.197Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true }

Corn (Zea mays L.) response to sublethal rates of paraquat and fomesafen at vegetative growth stages

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 June 2019

Benjamin P. Sperry
Affiliation:
Graduate Student, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS, USA
Benjamin H. Lawrence
Affiliation:
Research Associate II, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Delta Research and Extension Center, Stoneville, MS, USA
Jason A. Bond
Affiliation:
Research and Extension Professor, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Delta Research and Extension Center, Stoneville, MS, USA
Daniel B. Reynolds
Affiliation:
Professor and Endowed Chair, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS, USA
Bobby R. Golden
Affiliation:
Extension and Research Professor, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Delta Research and Extension Center, Stoneville, MS, USA;
Henry M. Edwards
Affiliation:
Research Associate, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Delta Research and Extension Center, Stoneville, MS, USA
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract

Research was conducted from 2013 to 2015 across three sites in Mississippi to evaluate corn response to sublethal paraquat or fomesafen (105 and 35 g ai ha−1, respectively) applied PRE, or to corn at the V1, V3, V5, V7, or V9 growth stages. Fomesafen injury to corn at three d after treatment (DAT) ranged from 0% to 38%, and declined over time. Compared with the nontreated control (NTC), corn height 14 DAT was reduced approximately 15% due to fomesafen exposure at V5 or V7. Exposure at V1 or V7 resulted in 1,220 and 1,110 kg ha−1 yield losses, respectively, compared with the NTC, but yield losses were not observed at any other growth stage. Fomesafen exposure at any growth stage did not affect corn ear length or number of kernel rows relative to the NTC. Paraquat injury to corn ranged from 26% to 65%, depending on growth stage and evaluation interval. Corn exposure to paraquat at V3 or V5 consistently caused greater injury across evaluation intervals, compared with other growth stages. POST timings of paraquat exposure resulted in corn height reductions of 13% to 50%, except at V7, which was most likely due to rapid internode elongation at that stage. Likewise, yield loss occurred after all exposure times of paraquat except PRE, compared with the NTC. Corn yield was reduced 1,740 to 5,120 kg ha−1 compared with the NTC, generally worsening as exposure time was delayed. Paraquat exposure did not reduce corn ear length, compared with the NTC, at any growth stage. However, paraquat exposure at V3 or V5 was associated with reduction of kernel rows by 1.1 and 1.7, respectively, relative to the NTC. Paraquat and fomesafen applications near corn should be avoided if conditions are conducive for off-target movement, because significant injury and yield loss can result.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Al-Khatib, K, Claassen, MM, Stahlman, PW, Geier, PW, Regehr, DL, Duncan, SR, Heer, WF (2003) Grain sorghum response to simulated drift from glufosinate, glyphosate, imazethapyr, and sethoxydim. Weed Technol 17:261265 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2016) Reflex herbicide product label. Syngenta Publication No. SCP 993A-L1Q 0316. Greensboro, NC: Syngenta Crop Protection LLC. 51 pGoogle Scholar
[ASABE] American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers (2009) Spray nozzle classification by droplet spectra. ASABE Standard S572.1. St. Joseph, MI: American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers. pp 13 Google Scholar
Banks, PA, Schroeder, J (2002) Carrier volume affects herbicide activity in simulated spray drift studies. Weed Technol 16:833837 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blouin, DC, Webster, EP, Bond, JA (2011) On the analysis of combined experiments. Weed Technol 25:165169 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bond, JA, Oliver, LR, Stephenson, DO (2006a) Response of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) accession to glyphosate, fomesafen, and pyrithiobac. Weed Technol 20:885892 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bond, JA, Griffin, JL, Ellis, JM, Linscombe, SD, Williams, BJ (2006b) Corn and rice response to simulated drift of imazethapyr plus imazapyr. Weed Technol 20:113117 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brecke, BJ, Currey, WL, Teem, DH (1980) Atrazine persistence in a corn-soybean doublecropping system. Agron J 73:534537 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, LR, Robinson, DE, Young, BG, Loux, MM, Johnson, WG, Nurse, RE, Swanton, RE, Sikkema, PH (2009) Response of corn to simulated glyphosate drift followed by in-crop herbicides. Weed Technol 23:1116 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buehring, NW, Roth, LO, Santelmann, PW (1973) Plant response to herbicide spray drop size and carrier volume. Trans Am Soc Agric Eng 16:636638 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunting, JA, Sprague, CL, Riechers, DE (2004) Corn tolerance as affected by the timing of foramsulfuron applications. Weed Technol 18:757762 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, JB, Kells, JJ (1995) Timing of total postemergence herbicide applications to maximize weed control and corn (Zea mays) yield. Weed Technol 9:356361 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cobucci, T, Prates, HT, Falcao, CLM, Rezende, MMV (1998) Effect of imazamox, fomesafen, and acifluorfen soil residue on rotational crops. Weed Sci 46:258263 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crow, WD, Steckel, LE, Hayes, RM, Mueller, RC (2015) Evaluation of POST-harvest herbicide applications for seed prevention of glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri). Weed Technol 29:405411 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, JM, Griffin, JL, Jones, CA (2002) Effect of carrier volume on corn (Zea mays) and soybean (Glycine max) response to simulated drift of glyphosate and glufosinate. Weed Technol 16:587592 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, JM, Griffin, JL, Linscombe, SD, Webster, EP (2003) Rice (Oryza sativa) and corn (Zea mays) response to simulated drift of glyphosate and glufosinate. Weed Technol 17:452460 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Etheridge, RE, Hart, WE, Hayes, RM, Mueller, TC (2001) Effect of venture-type nozzles and application volume on postemergence herbicide efficacy. Weed Technol 15:7580 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Everman, WJ, Clewis, SB, York, AC, Wilcut, JW (2009) Weed control and yield with flumioxazin, fomesafen, and S-metolachlor systems for glufosinate-resistant cotton residual weed management. Weed Technol 23:391397 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, HC, Sperry, BP, Reynolds, DB, Kruger, GR, Claussen, S (2018) Reducing herbicide particle drift: effect of hooded sprayer and spray quality. Weed Technol 32:714721 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giacomini, DA, Umphres, AM, Nie, H, Mueller, TC, Steckel, LE, Young, BG, Scott, RC, Tranel, PJ (2017) Two new PPX2 mutations associated with resistance to PPO-inhibiting herbicides in Amaranthus palmeri . Pest Manag Sci 73:15591563 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Givens, WA, Shaw, DR, Johnson, WG, Weller, SC, Young, BG, Wilson, RG, Owen, MDK, Jordan, D (2009) A grower survey of herbicide use patterns in glyphosate-resistant cropping systems. Weed Technol 23:156161 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guo, J, Zhu, G, Shi, J, Sun, J (2003) Adsorption, desorption and mobility of fomesafen in Chinese soils. Water Air Soil Poll 148:7785 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanway, JJ (1963) Growth stages of corn (Zea mays L.) Agron J 55:487492 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatterman-Valenti, HM, Pitty, A, Owen, MDK (2006) Effect of environment on giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) leaf wax and fluazifop-P absorption. Weed Sci 54:607614 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henry, WB, Shaw, DR, Reddy, KR, Bruce, LM, Tamhankar, HD (2004) Remote sensing to detect herbicide drift on crops. Weed Technol 18:358368 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, VA, Fisher, LR, Jordan, DL, Edmisten, KE, Stewart, AM, York, AC (2012) Cotton, peanut, and soybean response to sub-lethal rates of dicamba, glufosinate, and 2, 4-D. Weed Technol 26:195206 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, BC, Young, BG, Matthews, JL (2002) Effect of postemergence application rate and timing of mesotrione on corn (Zea mays) response and weed control. Weed Technol 16:414420 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knoche, M (1994) Effect of droplet size and carrier volume on performance of foliage-applied herbicides. Crop Prot 13:3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maybank, JK, Yoshida, K, Grover, R (1978) Spray drift from agricultural pesticide applications. Air Pollut Contr Assoc J 28:10091014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKinlay, KS, Ashford, SR, Ford, RJ (1974) Effects of drop size, spray volume, and dosage on paraquat toxicity. Weed Sci 22:3134 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mueller, TC, Boswell, BW, Mueller, SS, Steckel, LE (2014) Dissipation of fomesafen, saflufenacil, sulfentrazone, and flumioxazin from a Tennessee soil under field conditions. Weed Sci 62:664671 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Griffith, GM, Scott, RC, Smith, KL, Oliver, LR (2008) Confirmation and control of glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in Arkansas. Weed Technol 22:108113 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen, LN, Steckel, LE, Koger, CH, Main, CL, Mueller, TC (2009) Evaluation of spring and fall burndown application timings on control of glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis) in no-till cotton. Weed Technol 23:335339 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramsdale, BK, Messersmith, CG (2001a) Drift-reducing nozzle effects on herbicide performance. Weed Technol 15:453460 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramsdale, BK, Messersmith, CG (2001b) Nozzle, spray volume, and adjuvant effects on carfentrazone and imazamox efficacy. Weed Technol 15:485491 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rauch, BJ, Bellinder, RR, Brainard, DC, Lane, M, Thies, JE (2007) Dissipation of fomesafen in New York state soils and potential to cause carryover injury to sweet corn. Weed Technol 21:206212 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reddy, KN, King, W, Zablotowicz, RM, Thomson, SJ, Huang, Y, Krutz, LJ (2010) Biological responses to glyphosate drift from aerial application in non-glyphosate-resistant corn. Pest Manag Sci 66:11481154 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reichard, DL, Triplett, GB (1983) Paraquat efficacy as influenced by atomizer type. Weed Sci 31:779782 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salas, RA, Burgos, NR, Tranel, PJ, Singh, S, Glasgow, L, Scott, RC, Nichols, RL (2016) Resistance to PPO-inhibiting herbicide in Palmer amaranth from Arkansas. Pest Manag Sci 72:864869 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shaw, DR (1996) Development of stale seedbed weed control programs for southern row crops. Weed Sci 44:413416 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schonherr, J, Baur, P (1994) Modeling penetration of plant cuticles by crop protection agents and effects of adjuvants on their rates of penetration. Pestic Sci 42:185208 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, HC, Ferrell, JA, Webster, TM, Fernandez, JV (2017) Cotton response to simulated auxin herbicide drift using standard and ultra-low carrier volumes. Weed Technol 31:19 Google Scholar
Soltani, N, Mashhadi, HR, Mesgaran, MB, Cowbrough, M, Tardiff, FJ, Chandler, K, Nurse, RE, Swanton, CJ, Sikkema, PH (2011) The effect of residual corn herbicides on injury and yield of soybean seeded in the same season. Can J Plant Sci 91:571576 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swanton, CJ, Chandler, K, Elmes, MJ, Murphy, SD, Anderson, GW (1996) Postemergence control of annual grasses and corn (Zea mays) tolerance using DPX-79406. Weed Technol 10:288294 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tucker, BV, Pack, DE, Ospenson, JN, Omid, A, Thomas, WD (1969) Paraquat soil bonding and plant response. Weed Sci 17:448451 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agriculture Statistics Service (2010) Field Crops Usual Planting and Harvesting Dates October 2010. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. P 41 Google Scholar
Van Roekel, RJ, Coulter, JA (2011) Agronomic responses of corn to planting date and plant density. Agron J 103:14141422 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varanasi, VK, Brabham, C, Norsworthy, JK, Nie, H, Young, BG, Houston, M, Barber, T, Scott, RC (2018) A statewide survey of PPO-inhibitor resistance and the prevalent target-site mechanism in Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) accession from Arkansas. Weed Sci 66:149158 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, JB (1993) Ionization and sorption of fomesafen and atrazine by soils and soil constituents. Pestic Sci 39:3138 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, EP, Hensley, JB, Blouin, DC, Harrell, DL, Bond, JA (2015) Impact of off-site deposition of glufosinate to non-clearfield rice. Weed Technol 29:207216 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitaker, JR, York, AC, Jordan, DL, Culpepper, AS (2010) Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) control in soybean with glyphosate and conventional herbicide systems. Weed Technol 24:403410 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Corn (Zea mays L.) response to sublethal rates of paraquat and fomesafen at vegetative growth stages
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Corn (Zea mays L.) response to sublethal rates of paraquat and fomesafen at vegetative growth stages
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Corn (Zea mays L.) response to sublethal rates of paraquat and fomesafen at vegetative growth stages
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *